Reasons to Oppose Hate Crimes Legislation for Homosexuals
by: Barrett Duke - Jul 13, 2007 - comments: 65
The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission is extremely concerned about hate crimes legislation for homosexuals for numerous reasons. First, we believe such legislation is unconstitutional because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. The legislation creates special protected status for a group of people that is not available for others. Prosecutors will be given more assistance in prosecuting crimes of violence against homosexuals, for example, than most other people. In essence, the legislation is discriminatory. By elevating some people to higher levels of government protection, everyone else is treated as second-class citizens. If the identical violent crime is committed against people not protected under hate crimes legislation, they cannot receive federal assistance in the prosecution of their attacker.
In addition, the legislation is dangerous. It clearly moves into the realm of thought-crimes. The legislation speaks about crimes of violence motivated “by prejudice based on actual or perceived” sexual orientation and gender identity. It is this “prejudice” language in connection with sexual orientation and gender identity that is especially troublesome. If the local prosecutor becomes aware that the attacker was opposed to homosexuality, he could say that the attacker’s “prejudice” contributed to the motivation for the attack. Once he makes that claim, he can appeal for special prosecutorial involvement from the federal government. In essence, people will be prosecuted for what they think, or what someone thinks they think, not only for what they actually say. Furthermore, the prosecutor could claim that the attacker “perceived” the victim was a homosexual, and that this perception motivated the attack. In other words, the victim doesn’t even have to actually be homosexual for this legislation to apply. The prosecutor just has to provide evidence that the attacker thought the person was a homosexual and attacked the victim for that reason.
The legislation is also dangerous in the way that it can be used to prosecute people of faith. It is easy to see how this thought-crimes approach could ensnare Christians, for example. Since the Christian faith is known to oppose homosexual behavior, it is possible that any Christian who commits an act of violence against a homosexual could be accused of committing a hate crime. We would hope that Christians wouldn‘t commit acts of violence, but we know they do at times. Just because their victim is a homosexual, it doesn’t mean they attacked the person for that reason. Just because they are opposed to homosexuality, doesn’t mean they go around attacking people they think are homosexuals. Under this legislation, they would have to prove they weren’t motivated by their beliefs about homosexuality when they committed their violent crime. Meanwhile, the entire power of the federal government is brought against them.
Hate crimes legislation for homosexuals could also open the door to the prosecution of speech as a hate crime. We have already witnessed the way other hate crimes bills have been used in this way. It appears to be a very short step from acts of physical violence to acts of verbal violence in the thinking of some law enforcement officials. Hate crimes legislation could be used to make speech against homosexuality a prosecutable offense, for example. Those who are offended by such speech could simply claim that they felt attacked by the “offensive” language. The person who made the speech would then have to defend himself against this accusation. The potential for the chilling effect on religious speech is obvious.
We are also concerned about the true motivations for passage of this legislation. Republicans tried about a dozen times to amend hate crimes legislation to provide this protection for other vulnerable groups, including pregnant women, law enforcement personnel, senior citizens, children, and others, but Democrats rejected every effort. By rejecting inclusion of these other groups, the Democrats have created the strong impression that they are more interested in providing special recognition and protections to homosexuals than they are in protecting all people from prejudicial acts of violence.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Sexual Purity, Homosexuality, Citizenship, Legislation, National, Religious Liberty
65 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Jul 13th, 2007, at 10:33am, Ed & Penny Thomas wrote:
We are tired of hetero-phobic legislation at everyone else’s expense.
Our laws already protect everyone equally without homosexuals being singled out and everyone else being silenced.
It comes across as your feeling that heterosexuality is a threat that must be silenced.
2 On Jul 13th, 2007, at 2:56pm, Julene Hartley wrote:
Funny, I don’t hear anyone rallying to the defense of those persons who have come out of the homosexual lifestyle. What about their rights (and feelings) when they suffer ridicule and “hate speech” from the radical homosexual propaganda machine who resent anyone who has successfully changed their lifestyle to heterosexuality.
And another thing, how long will it be before adulterers and pedophiles decide that they are being discriminated against because a local pastor preaches on a text from the Bible that condemns their actions?!
The answer is not more legislation; the answer is understanding the true meaning of respect for human beings.... the respect that only comes from truly KNOWING the Creator of human beings and following the laws that are already in place. But goodness knows, with illiteracy running rampant in our country, our legislators might not know what laws are already in place!
3 On Jul 13th, 2007, at 9:29pm, Damen Rae wrote:
Hate crimes against religion are already included. If we believe in equal protection, we can either add homosexuals to the list or take crimes against religion off it.
Maybe we shouldn’t complain about homosexuals getting “special” protected status. If every group is treated equally, couldn’t the government take away our “special” tax exempt status?
Who wants to be a hater, anyway?
4 On Jul 16th, 2007, at 9:17am, Dan Valdes wrote:
The bill says SEXUAL ORIENTATION!!!!! It’s says NOTHING about gay people (and you know it) so what is the issue Dr. Duke? When you folks begin LYING to achieve your objectives, you lose all credibility. Don’t you see that?
How can I hold you up as the pillar of Christian ethics when you and the organization you work for repeatedly LIE to achieve political grounds? This is a red herring and everyone knows it. It’s more of your homo-hating bigotry.
Let it go.
dan valdes
5 On Jul 17th, 2007, at 12:11pm, ericf wrote:
Clearly, the SBC position here is to revisit their glory days of the civil rights era, striving to prevent, at any cost, achievement of equality by a minority group within American society. I thought that the SBC had issued an apology to Black America for their segregationist policies of that era. By advocating the same policies toward the LGBT community, that apology is reveaved as nothing more than a mealy-mouthed attempt to escape the foul stench of the past.
6 On Jul 18th, 2007, at 11:00am, Greg Z wrote:
For those that are religious, HATE is sinful. So hate crime legislation shouldn’t bother you because it deals with something hate and good religious people believe in love and compassion, not hate. Furthermore, such legislation does not make anyone 2nd class. This is a democracy that gives power to the majority. However, we have a bill of rights in our constitution, which was created by the founding fathers for the purpose of protecting minorities from the abuses of the majority. Hate crime legislation seeks to simply add homosexuals to the list of minorities already protected, such as African Americans. Whether you like gays or not, they are citizens of the U.S. and should be protected like everyone else. Furthermore the term used is sexual orientation, meaning it protects heterosexuals as well, since heterosexuality is a sexual orientation. Although I have never heard of ‘straight’bashing . . .
7 On Jul 18th, 2007, at 3:17pm, Carlos Stouffer wrote:
ericf hits the hammer on the nerve. Mr. Duke, the world is watching and wondering why the SBC chooses to go down again these old tragic streets of injustice. Why wait another 50 or 100 years to issue another apology?
8 On Jul 19th, 2007, at 9:27am, MODERATOR wrote:
OK folks, please consider this a gentle, but one-time-only warning from your friendly neighborhood Moderator.
The ERLC is more than happy to provide these open forums, even for those of you that disagree with us. We hope that is evidenced by the comments we’ve allowed on multiple threads throughout our site. However, much of the rhetoric in the above posts is simply not conducive to anything resembling thoughtful discussion. The current direction of this conversation looks more like heckling than it does thoughtful (or even ‘spirited’) debate.
If the tone of this rhetoric does not turn around, we will turn off the comments function for this particular article and delete the comments currently posted. Additionally, we will forced to reconsider our moderation policies. As we heard in grade school, “Don’t ruin it for the rest of the children.”
Here are a few tips to get you started:
1. If you disagree with a statement in an article or another comment, state your claim and back it up.
2. Use multiple posts if the 1000 character limit is not enough space for you to do so.
3. If you believe someone (author, visitor, etc) to be lying (as stated multiple times above), substantiate your claim. We could all stand around calling each other liars but that would solve nothing.
4. If you wouldn’t say it to someone face to face in a public forum or, say, in front of your family, don’t say it here.
Be respectful. Make your case.
After all, if you are indeed sincere about winning more people to your ‘side,’ than act like it.
In other words, ”chill.”
9 On Jul 19th, 2007, at 1:25pm, Carlos Stouffer wrote:
Thanks Moderator for allowing all these comments. I see them as spirited and passionate but not necessarily over the line or abusive. That a major denomination like the SBC is opposed to such hate crimes legislation in the name of religious liberty is indeed hard to take for many of us. Why not err on the side of love? Does it not bother the leadership of the SBC that opposing hate crimes legislation will only send the message that the SBC is being prejudicial towards gays? What kind of Christian witness is this? I mean this as a serious question and not as a flippant rhetorical excess. Should we not care more deeply above loving people the way Jesus would?
10 On Jul 20th, 2007, at 1:24pm, Jarrot Garza wrote:
Carlos, maybe I can try and help you see why we(the SBC and I, someone who used to apart of the gay community) wishes not for this legislation to pass!
Now though in my experience I have heard more condemnation on the issue of homosexuality in Baptist churches, there are still plenty that preach a very loving, forgiving, and Christ centered redemptive approach to it, but still that approach is one of change.
With that in mind the SBC see this new legislation as a “POTENTIAL” law that would prevent this message for being preached. Because the idea of change to most gay and lesbians is hateful, mean, and bigotry. Though there are plenty out there, like myself, that would say other wise. They also take into account the laws passed in Canada not to long ago that has resulted in a couple arrests on a subject matter close to this.
11 On Jul 20th, 2007, at 1:32pm, Jarrot Garza wrote:
Simply put ministries for people like myself, who once were gay but now through personal choice and convection wish, desire, and want to change could “potential” be considered illegal.
This could possibly be one or many reason why they aren’t in favor of this bill. Another reason is because I believe a senator tryed to put in a amendment which would exclude religious speach or preaching from falling under this law. It was denied. That makes us fear this bill is simply for that reason, though I deeply wish it is not!
But you are right Carlos we should “care more deeply abo[ut] loving people the way Jesus would” which was unconditional, but He still requires of us to die to ourselves, our desires, and our way and take up our cross and follow Him to death. Where we have hope that it’s not the end!
12 On Jul 20th, 2007, at 2:21pm, Carlos Stouffer wrote:
Thanks Jarrot for your perspective. I am not necessarily against people who desire to change their sexual orientation. If this is what they think and feel is best for them, then we should kindly and generously support them. At the same time we should help everybody by making available all the best psychological and medical resources. As far as I know the hate crimes legislation is not related to these issues nor will it go against our religious freedom traditions. There seems to be a lot of confusion and manipulation. Perhaps we should all look into to this more carefully. From my distance, it just looks like the SBC is on the wrong side of history, justice and equality. Is this what the SBC really wants?
13 On Jul 20th, 2007, at 3:54pm, Carlos Stouffer wrote:
Jarrot, this article gives a good overview on the hate crimes legislation and suggests that the criticism about the coming lack of religious freedom is overstated.
14 On Jul 23rd, 2007, at 9:41am, Greg Z wrote:
Brutality against gays is often based on the fact that they are gay. Even if this site isn’t hostile towards gays you can at least admit that there are plenty of Americans that are. The police system is largely not protecting them either. Violence against gays by police officers and in police stations and jail systems for the sole reason that they are gay is a well documented problem. The most violent month against gays is June, closely followed by July. Why? Well that is when most gay pride festivals are held.
My question is this:
If you oppose hate crime legislation protecting people based on sexual (NOT GAY) orientation, then how do you propose that we protect the gay community?
We all hopefully agree that gays shouldn’t be subject to hateful violence. So if you are against this legislation please have some other plan for protecting one of America’s vulnerable minorities and don’t go through with this blindly.
15 On Jul 30th, 2007, at 10:11am, Dan Valdes wrote:
There seems to me to be something inherently troubling about a Christian organization that seeks to prevent a hate crimes law passing because of their concern about being bound by such a law.
Think about it.
Christianity is the religion of love, love beyond measure. Love to difficult for most of us to obtain.
SBC is politically active at keeping a hate crimes bill from becoming law. They have stated a concern it will somehow be tied to Baptist sermons or restrict Baptist’s freedom to speak.
Does anyone sense a disconnect here besides me?
16 On Jul 30th, 2007, at 1:55pm, Carlos Stouffer wrote:
Yes, Dan, the disconnect is real, sad and very tragic. It is also bad politics and worse Christianity to insist on opposing a law that seeks to live out the true and loving spirit of Jesus.
17 On Jul 31st, 2007, at 9:54am, Ken K wrote:
I find it interesting that some point out that hate is sinful, which it is, but at the same time fail to also point out that, according to the standard that God set in His Word, homosexuality is also sinful. There is nothing compassionate or loving in encouraging any person to continue in any lifestyle that is sinful, no matter what that lifestyle may be. As Christians, we have the responsibility to proclaim the whole gospel of Christ, which is repentance FROM sin and faith in Jesus Christ as Lord. Any legislation that potentially threatens the freedom to proclaim the message of redemption and forgiveness is bad legislation. As Christians, we desire justice for all that have been wronged, but not at the expense of the freedom to speak with love about the whole counsel of God.
18 On Jul 31st, 2007, at 12:59pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Ken K says “There is nothing compassionate or loving in encouraging any person to continue in any lifestyle that is sinful, no matter what that lifestyle may be.” but being gay is not a lifestyle or a choice, Ken K.
It’s much deeper than a lifestyle. It’s something about who we love, what we think of home and family, how we fall in love and what romance means. It’s not as simple and you describe.
It’s who we are in our inner core. It’s like saying being heterosexual is a lifestyle or a choice. Think about it Ken K. Can you turn from who you are to be something you are not, especialy just for the comfort of someone else? You oversimply it when you put it into such terms.
dan valdes
19 On Jul 31st, 2007, at 1:09pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Ken K says “Any legislation that potentially threatens the freedom to proclaim the message of redemption and forgiveness is bad legislation.” I agree but that statement has nothing to do with the hate crimes bill.
There are provisions in the bill that speak directly to that very issue, so I must assume that Ken K is speaking about a bill that he has yet to actually read.
I propose the SBC banks on people like Ken K. that form opinions without doing the homework and really being informed, educated voters.
Check out the language in the bill, Section 8 Ken K. It addresses your concerns.
It also occurs to me that the SBC and Dr. Duke HAVE indeed read the bill and they opine away regardless of facts. That really makes me wonder.
20 On Jul 31st, 2007, at 4:45pm, Ken K wrote:
Dan, you say you disagree with me when I say that the homosexual lifestyle is a choice. The problem is, I am not the one saying it, God is. The Word tells us that all sin is a choice that we make to disobey God’s standards that He has set up for our benefit. No matter what we may call it, or how we may to seek to justify it, sin is still sin. And it is not compassionate or loving to tell any person that it is all right for them to live in sin, when that sin is what Jesus died for. God does not measure or label sins as big or small or important or unimportant, like we have a tendency to do. To Him all sin, no matter what it is, is an affront to His holiness. We would not justify a kleptomaniac’s or embezzler’s stealing, or a pedophile’s child abuse, or a serial killer’s murder, or a married man’s infidelity. How can we justify the choice to go contrary to God’s designs for sexual activity when He clearly explains to us what they are?
21 On Jul 31st, 2007, at 5:02pm, Ken K wrote:
In response to your question; yes, Dan, you can turn from who you are to someone that you are not. That is the glorious truth of the Salvation message. The Apostle Paul said: “I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance (Gr. metanoia = “a change of mind") toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” Acts 20:20,21. The Apostle Peter wrote: “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. (Same Gr. word) That is why the Bible tells us that if any one is in Christ they are “a new creation; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.” 2 Cor. 5:17
22 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 4:03am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Ken K you just don’t understand and when you quote Scripture to reinforce your position, it only underscores your lack of understanding. Tell me when you chose to be heterosexual and then we can have meaningful dialogue. You list behaviors and I am talking about something much deeper than simple surface bahavior
God bless
Dan
23 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 4:23am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Ken K says “We would not justify a kleptomaniac’s or embezzler’s stealing, or a pedophile’s child abuse, or a serial killer’s murder, or a married man’s infidelity.”
....and therein lies the bigotry associated with some Baptists, especially the politically active SBC and the gay community.
He would me more on target to say we would not condemn a man for being born with blue eyes or fair skin or being sexually aroused by and falling in love with the opposite sex (gender) but instead he compares being gay to being a murderer a thief or a scoundrel. All behaviors, it is worth noting.
When did Ken K decide to be not gay? How did that process work for you mentally and emotionally? Do you elect it for a lifetime, Mr. K or is it just a phase? Do you ever go back and forth? Are you not gay just when you are sexually active or are you not gay all the time? You see Mr, K. I will always be gay, even if I never have sex or fall in love again. There it is.
Dan Valdes
24 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 9:42am, Jarrot Garza wrote:
Dan,
I hope this helps you understand Ken’s point. Simply having a desire or urge deep within you doesn’t make you that desire or urge does it? I mean just because I wanted to lie for the reason I was late for work today doesn’t make me a liar, if I instead tell the truth? And even if I did, the wonderful news about Gods grace, mercy, and compassion is it wouldn’t label me as a liar that is saved, BUT instead a Child of God that occasionally lies! The same why with homosexuality, just because I was one and still struggle with it today doesn’t make me one. And even when I do stumble in my walk to live like God intended me to (heterosexual), it doesn’t label me a homosexual that is saved, BUT instead a Child of God that struggles with homosexuality.
I know you don’t believe that homosexuality is something you can change, or something that is wrong. But I never believed nor do I believe that I will one day never have to deal with the desires for that life.
25 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 9:57am, Jarrot Garza wrote:
JUST like I don’t believe I’ll never have the desire to lie again. But THAT DOESN’T mean I must obey those desires. And only by the strength Jesus gives me can I not obey those desires, but instead follow after Him and His.
Its like my dad is said to have genetic traits that makes him more prone to be an alcoholic. Now just because that is so, does it mean he has to be? Does that mean when an urge arises for him to drink he MUST obey? I would encourage you to read Genesis Chpts 1-3. Especially three, it really tells of the destructive power sin had on man AND the world. So even if homosexuality is genetic, which I personally don’t believe it is(but thats just me!), it doesn’t mean that was Gods plan for our lives in Genesis 1-2. Just like my genetic trait for my blood disorder was a result from that original sin in the garden.
Dan I want you to know that change is possible, that Ken and I love you, and that God loves you!
Jarrot
26 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 10:26am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Dear Jarrot,
I believe that we can be true to ourselves or we can deny ourselves. In my humble opinion, it sounds to me as if you elect to do the latter for personal religious reasons. That is your business and I respect it.
The issue I have is when people try to keep gay people down politically or deny our civil liberties in the guise of religion.
That is my main point with the Baptists.
I am less concerned with justifying myself to them as I will stand alone before the Lord so I only have my own soul to be concerned with in that regard and I have peace with my sexuality and my Christian faith.
This is a political struggle on this website. This is the political wing of the SBC therefore I challenge their assertions about gay people and the bigotry they expose.
27 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 10:30am, Matt wrote:
Hi Dan,
You said,
My question: What civil liberties do you believe Baptists are denying you?
28 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 12:42pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Thanks for the question Matt.
Well the obvious one is marriage equality. The value of our relationships is marginalized and trivialized by those who would deem them unworthy or sinful.
Additionally we are denied equal workforce equality protections by the Federal govt. and the Baptists are against that pending ENDA legislation.
Thirdly the Baptists are against the Hate Crimes legislation for obscure reasons but they claim that it has to do with “thought police” and preachers not being able to speak anti gay sermons. Nothing has silenced Fred Phelps so far and they fail to mention Section 8 of that bill in their writings.
continued…
29 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 12:49pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
The fourth major contention I have is regarding adoption and our families as worthy and valuable.
The SBC intentionally puts up misleading and deceptive writings about the abilities of gay people to be parents.
I have real issue with this because I know many gay families from my work at VBS in a Methodist affirming church. Gay men and women are fully capable of raising healthy and happy children. The SBC puts up spurious claims and fallacious arguments about such matters in a deliberate and inflamatory manner to bias people against us falsely.
I contend the SBC wants gay people to not be accepted in society as “normal.” That position affords them a kind of spiritual superiority which boils down to nothing more than religious oppression.
It allows a sanctimonious attitude to flourish in the church that does not further Christian fellowship.
30 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 12:56pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Those are my starters but the most troubling one is the bigotry against us as human beings.
Presented in the guise of love, that paradigm says we are somehow broken and less valuable if we are sexually active, even if in a monogamous long term relationship.
That’s bunk and dangerous for humanity because it sets one man above another much as racism sets one race above another.
While some of those are current civil liberty issues the most troubling one deals with not really understanding human sexuality and variations.
They refuse to get beyond the notion that gay people elect to be gay. What do you imagine that offers us?
That’s not reality. It leads to all kinds of false understandings, prejudice and self justified bigotry.
31 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 3:48pm, Ken K wrote:
Dan, I have not quoted scripture to reinforce “my” position. I have shared with you the truth of God’s Word hoping that you would receive this truth. These are things that God says, not me. I don’t see how you can say that these things are bigotry when God tells us that the truth that is found in His Son is available to all people. It is apparent to me that it is not I who lack understanding, but it is you. I imagine that this is because your mind and heart are darkened. “Jesus said to them, ‘Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God?’” (Mk.12:24) I will pray for you to become open the love and truth that is Jesus Christ.
32 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 6:34pm, Jarrot Garza wrote:
Dan,
I would totally agree 100%, I do deny myself BUT Matt 16:24, Mark 8:34, and Luke 9:23 says to follow Christ we MUST “deny(aparnehomahee:to deny, to forget one’s self, lose sight of one’s self and one’s own interests, to disregard his own interests, act entirely unlike himself, not to accept, to reject, to refuse something) ourselves”
I wonder Dan is God a bigot by definition? A bigot is “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group or religion and is intolerant of those who differ.” Is He not jealous and VERY much partial to Himself? Exodus 20:5, 34:14, Deuteronomy 4:24, 5:9, Joshua 24:19, etc...And is He very tolerant of other gods? Deuteronomy 6:14-16 would say strongly no! So Dan, what makes the SBC bigots because they refuse to move and accept what others see a normal, ok, and right. And hold to what they see as right, Godly, and holy in concordance to Gods word says?
Jarrot
33 On Aug 2nd, 2007, at 6:30am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Jarrot reasonably asks “I wonder Dan is God a bigot by definition? A bigot is “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group or religion and is intolerant of those who differ.”
I can’t speak for God but by that definition, the SBC and many Christians are.
34 On Aug 2nd, 2007, at 10:45am, Matt Hawkins wrote:
Dan, I do thank you for responding at length to my question above. I’m considering a response, but you’ve thrown me off with your last comment, so please bear with me.
Call me confused again…
Do you (Dan) consider yourself also “strongly partial to one’s own group or religion and is intolerant of those who differ.”
Based on your posts to ERLC.com, I would certainly deduce that you are intolerant of “SBC and many Christians” (your words).
So based on your intolerance of the people (ex. ERLC) who you are arguing against, do you consider yourself a bigot as well? That would seem only logical, again, based on your agreement of the definition.
Additionally, something else confused me. You dodged entirely Jarrot’s question about God being a bigot. Let me recap:
-Jarrot defined bigotry
-Jarrot gave examples from Scripture that could define God as a bigot
-Jarrot asked you (Dan) if you agreed that God is a bigot
-Dan agreed to the definition of a bigot then
-Dan calls “Baptists and many Christians” bigots again but in the same sentence
-says, “I can’t speak for God...” (Thus, Dan dodged the specific question about God.)
You see Dan, I see you continually criticizing Baptists for their stance on these issues. (I have no problem so far.) But you base your criticism on your understanding of Scripture. You’ve even said, “God created me that way [gay]...” (Again, I have no problem yet.)
But my question to you is this: Why do you attempt to ‘speak for God’ in some cases but not on others. Why has the ‘cat got your tongue’ on this one?
So again, based on your agreement to the definition of a bigot, and observations from Scripture that Jarrot referenced above, do you or do you not consider God to be a bigot?
35 On Aug 2nd, 2007, at 11:33am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Hi Matt,
I can’t address everything right away but to the point of intolerance for Baptists. You have the right to your opinion and beliefs AND if you left it in the pulpit, I would probably be silent, however, this website is largely political and therefore you bring yourself into the public arena. That is my primary purpose for standing up for myself here. I won’t let bullies push me around like that.
Regarding is God a bigot. You know it can go a lot of ways. The Roman Catholic church persecuting heretics during the inquisition served a bigoted God. That’s not my understanding of Christ, however, I know that SOME Christians look at Scripture like..."The only way to the Father, is through Me.” in St. John so I don’t want to get into that argument because I have respect for all faiths, without having to make my beliefs superior in a public manner.
36 On Aug 2nd, 2007, at 1:32pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
Exd 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name [is] Jealous, [is] a jealous God:
I would say Jarrot that there is one standard for God when dealing with mankind and another standard for man. Christ tells us himself that we should not cast stones as if we are without blemish.
For man, I think a degree of humility is appropriate, it’s not our place to judge others and to label their value. That’s the issue I have with the anti-gay politically active Baptist lobby. They are sitting in sanctimonious judgment of gay people when Christ tells us to remove the log from our own eye first.
37 On Aug 2nd, 2007, at 3:29pm, Matt Hawkins wrote:
Dan says,
Should I take that to mean that your “understanding of Christ” does not include Christ’s own words from the Gospels?
I’m all for ‘respecting’ people of other faiths, but when differing faiths claim distinctly different things about the identity of God (or in this case, about the opinion of God on a divisive issue) I tend to ask, “which one is correct?”
Either one is correct and the other is not, or both are incorrect, but they cannot both be correct.
So, if it is not bigoted for God to claim [X] about himself, is it bigoted for [Christians, Baptists] to affirm (and proclaim) God’s own claims for himself?
38 On Aug 2nd, 2007, at 3:56pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Matt thanks for the question. Although we are getting off topic, it’s worth discussion.
God’s self characterization as jealous is not the same as being bigoted. That stands on its own merit and I don’t think it needs further elaboration. God does not say “I am a bigot” but rather “I am a jealous God”. That means He wants our love and we are not to love other gods.
Jealousy and bigotry are clearly two different things.
contd..
39 On Aug 2nd, 2007, at 4:03pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
continued....
Now I have personal beliefs about Christ, and for the sake of clarification here I will say that I believe that He is the only source of redemption. That having been said, I do not concurrently feel the need to proclaim the Jewish faith or Muslim faith or any other faith for that matter as false.
I believe we share the gospel and allow God to do the rest. I don’t need to shove it down someone’s throat or invalidate their beliefs simply because I have a personal belief that I see as truth and also don’t share their belief system. Does that make sense?
In other words, I would agree that Christ is the true living God but we don’t PROVE that to others. If they see Him in me, they are drawn to Him not by me but by Christ living in me.
contd…
40 On Aug 2nd, 2007, at 4:10pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
As far as Baptists proclaiming something they understand as truth and being bigoted, I understand this website is political not ministerial.
When we live with the heart of the servant we are living the gospel. Look to the Sermon on the Mount for the key to happiness and truth.
That is not what I see on this website regarding gay people. I see a political action committee desperately seeking a hold on waning power and political influence. I see fear that times are changing and the old guard is changing hands. This website is about retaining power and political influence more than it is about Christianity, in my opinion.
41 On Aug 15th, 2007, at 6:22pm, Jarrot Garza wrote:
Dan,
How long has homosexuality been around? For we know that even some of those who were apart of the first church in Corinth were homosexual (1 Cor 6:11). How much disagreement did they receive, for they were apart of a culture where such a lifestyle was not uncommon. Yet Paul tells them how they were sanctified, set apart, from their old ways and made to walk in Christ as new vessels. Do you not think that the letter Paul wrote(1 Corinthians) didn’t get around that town. Do you think they keep Paul’s words to themselves, and left it at the pulpit? If anything Dan, I see the old ways coming back and taking the place where the new principles of Christ now stand. The website is about fighting for those principles. Which people have been doing for thousands of years. I feel like bigotry is in the eye of the beholder, and the worlds eyes are changing not for the better but back to what they were.
Dan I love you and God loves you and change is possible. I would love to hear your reply!
42 On Aug 16th, 2007, at 1:19pm, eric wrote:
“I feel like bigotry is in the eye of the beholder, and the worlds eyes are changing not for the better but back to what they were.”
That’s just how you behold things, right? An opinion; no more, no less.
As a Christian you use the Bible as a guide by which to live your life. Such is your right. You do NOT have the right to use the Bible to live other people’s lives. Your opinion has great weight in your making moral decisions for YOUR life; it may well be meaningless to others. Such is THEIR right.
43 On Aug 17th, 2007, at 6:00am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Jarrot says “Dan I love you and God loves you and change is possible. I would love to hear your reply!”
First I would ask what exactly do you mean by change?
Secondly I would ask how you mean you love me but implied in the same statement is a condition...that I undergo some kind of change to merit that love. What are the boundaries of your love for me?
How would I need to change to suit your paradigm? Why should I live according to someone else’s point of view? Why should I believe they know best for me? What if you have an ethnocentric understanding? Am I not to trust my own inner nature?
(I am asking in earnest.)
44 On Aug 17th, 2007, at 3:37pm, Jarrot Garza wrote:
Dan,
Please don’t say “Jarrot says” it makes me feel like you simply trying to make a point instead of speaking to me.
Dan I don’t have time to write much, but know that I will later when I have the time.
P.S. I should write that statement like this: I love you. God loves you. And change is possible.
Jarrot
45 On Aug 21st, 2007, at 11:52am, eric wrote:
Jarrot wrote,
“I should write that statement like this: I love you. God loves you. And change is possible.”
Or, if he had any concept of love or respect, he would leave the “changing” bit out altogether!
It is not his position to determine who needs to change, and who does not. It is his duty to live his life as he sees fit, and allow others the same right. His ‘love’ seems to be predicated on the same basis as his respect; that the other person fall into line behind his beliefs. Nobody is requiring that he change in order to achieve a level of equality in society; perhaps he might return that respect, at least.
46 On Sep 1st, 2007, at 6:04pm, Greg Z wrote:
Although I like the previous comments, and I think eric makes great points, it has gotten off topic. Can anyone tell me how hate crime legislation for sexual orientation hurts anyone or gives the LGBQA community elevated status? It doesn’t make speech illegal. You can say whatever you want about homosexuality in your church. It simply makes criminally targeting the LGBQA community illegal. You have to be convicted of a crime with existing laws before a hate crime can be applied. The Supreme Court ruled that the KKK can use hateful language against African Americans despite hate crime legislation for race. There is a legal separation between speech and criminal action. Unless you plan on murdering or assaulting homosexuals then this legislation won’t affect your life. Ideally I believe hate crime legislation shouldn’t be necessary, but the reality is that we live in a society full of hate and oppression.
47 On Sep 4th, 2007, at 10:29am, Dan Valdes wrote:
You are totally on point with your commentary Greg Z.
So the question then becomes, what is behind all the urgency at SBC to insure this bill fails?
Why don’t they have the courage of their convictions and pen genuine anti-gay essays instead of resorting to this inflammatory rhetoric, fear mongering and hateful hyperbole that is really quite utter nonsense.
48 On Sep 5th, 2007, at 10:20am, Leo wrote:
Moderator - thanks for your input - it allowed for a wonderful discussion.
Dan - do you not see the ERLC as having courage - they encourage this very discussion of a delicate and possibly hurtful subject where they know they will be vilified. Is that not conviction, much like yours? As for other items - the ERCL and the SBC hold many convictions outside this issue, devoting time, energy, effort, thought, and word to those issues. Dan, thank you for your words and conviction - it has definitely helped me.
Eric - God calls us to repent - which, by definition, demands a change in direction for one’s life.
49 On Sep 27th, 2007, at 2:11pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Praise God the bill passes the Senate 9/27/07!!
50 On Oct 5th, 2007, at 11:30am, Jerry wrote:
What really bothers me is the implication by many in evangelical churches that all Christians are opposed to this type of legislation or other gay related issues.
There are Christian denomination supportive of gay rights (the UCC and the Episcopal Church come to mind). OR is it that you all don’t consided the UCC to be a Christian denomination.
Iam a former SBCer now worshipping at an Open& Affirming UCC church (the SBC even use to have some of these churches).
Thanks,
Jerry
51 On Nov 2nd, 2007, at 5:49pm, Johnny Saldua wrote:
The last time I checked the Commandments were still Commandments and not Suggestions. Gods very first words to Adam and EVE were be fruitful and multiply, even after the flood of the earth, he told Noah first and foremost be fruitful and multiply. If we were all homosexuals the world would no longer exist. Homosexuals rely on hetersexuals to keep the world going. If this is the case they must go by our rules.
52 On Nov 5th, 2007, at 10:35am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Dear Jimmy Saluda,
Leviticus 20:13
NLT: (New Living Translation): “The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act, and are guilty of a capital offense.”
Are these the rules that you speak of?
Dan Valdes
53 On Nov 7th, 2007, at 1:45pm, Jerry wrote:
In my previous post, I asked the following:
Do those in opposition to gay rights and equal opportunity consider the UCC and other gay affirming denominations to be Christian?
Any responses with comments would be most appreciated.
Grace,
Jerry
54 On Nov 7th, 2007, at 6:30pm, Jarrot wrote:
You asked the question that would have to be answered yes I believe there could be Christians within the UCC denomination! I, nor do I know anyone on the planet who can judge the heart of a man. So the immediate answer to this question I feel would be yes, if they confess Christ as Gods only Son, who came to this earth to take away their sins. Then I must give them credit and trust in their word. Now I will say, I don’t think their views or beliefs follow the best biblical model nor express the complete holiness of Gods divine justice and truth. And with 1 Corinthians 3:11 which says “I meant that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Don’t even eat with such people.” I could not in good conviction associate or maintain fellowship with anyone who practices these things without conviction nor repentance nor desire to change.
55 On Nov 8th, 2007, at 1:26pm, Greg wrote:
Mainly in response to Johnny’s comment:
What about sterile couples or those who choose not to have any kids?
And these rules you speak of, are you saying its ok to commit hate crimes against homosexuals? Equal rights aren’t special rights. Being straight doesn’t make you a better man.
The quote Jarrot refers to mentions things besides just homosexuality and he points out. But why do adulterers, drunkards, idol worshipers, and greedy people have more rights in this nation than homosexuals? Homosexuals are an oppressed group by society, and if that oppression is justified by the bible then shouldn’t sterile couples, all non-christians, the greedy, alcoholics, and adulterers be oppressed people as well? Ok is this bible logic a defense for deep hatred, fear, and bigotry against homosexuals?
56 On Nov 8th, 2007, at 6:45pm, Jarrot wrote:
Greg,
You assume, or it sounds that way, I’m in favor of legislation benefitting adulterers, drunkards, idol worshipers, greedy people. I’m not, I’m also not in favor of oppression of them either.
How does this view, MY view, express any kind of hatred(not just deep rooted), fear, or bigotry?
57 On Nov 22nd, 2007, at 12:24pm, john paul rohde wrote:
The last paragraph of Mr. Duke’s article seems somewhat unclear as to whether or not he thinks Southern Baptists should support the efforts of Republicans to seek “protection” for “vulnerable groups” (pregnant women etc...) or not. Wouldn’t special legal protections for these groups also raise Constitutional concerns with regard to the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause based on his arguments?
Isn’t it interesting that Jesus calls us to avoid sins of thought when he describes hatred and murder as morally equivalent. Why should Southern Baptists oppose hate crimes laws that serve to bring our legal system more in line with Christ’s teaching??
58 On Dec 13th, 2007, at 8:12pm, Johnny Saldua Jr. wrote:
Greg, sterile couples come from the result of sin into the world. We have a choice to behave or to not behave regardless of our all knowing God. There is a course on theology of the body that may relieve you of this confusion. However if I may take you back further, nothing can cause its own existance it had to have a previous cause in order for it to exist. I’m speaking about the material in general. So since this is the case, it must be pure spirit and must be infinite to close that huge gape of perfection. The reason it must be spirit is beacause its outside the material universe.Now that Iv’e refuted athiest with just only a little, lets talk about homosexuals.Your body is a temple of God. You must have a conscious thats formed to the will of God. Having a good conscious is not enough, but having one formed to God is on another level. I do pray you may be inspired by the right spirits. Remember ther are other spirits out ther to tell you your identity. God bless you
59 On Jan 11th, 2008, at 8:06am, Mia Holton wrote:
That was my 2cents worth of opinion, but my main reason for posting is that I couldn’t help reacting to some of Johnny Saldua Jr’s comments. Johnny, your line of reasoning in regards to homosexuals needing to be subservient to heterosexual rules because of the gracious act of heterosexuals saving the world by going forth and multiplying, is pitted with some rather big assumptions and misconceptions. 1) Homosexuals are anatomically identical to heterosexuals, hence it is not physically impossible for them to reproduce. If the last few people on earth were lesbians and gay men they could in effect repopulate. They might not necessarily get sexual satisfaction, but the deed could still be done. The birds and the bees and all that jazz still applies…continued.
60 On Jan 11th, 2008, at 1:14pm, Johnny Saldua Jr. wrote:
In response to Mia Holton.In the unnatural sense maybe. However, we as people do not have a natural ending, we have a supernatural ending, which requires supernatural means. Sanctity from God. It seems to me you do not lack from an intellectual crisis, but from a moral crisis. You remind me of the words of St. Jerome “ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ”. You must read them in context.
61 On Jan 11th, 2008, at 11:59pm, Mia Holton wrote:
(I’m having trouble uploading more than one thread so this is not a response to your most recent comment)…2) Johnny you said that if we were all homosexuals the world would not exist. Here you assume that the world needs people to exist. You may believe that humanity is the epicentre of God’s creation, but scientifically, the earth would still revolve and function without people, including heterosexuals. Considering Earth’s population numbers in the billions I think we’ve achieved the going forth and multiplying command, maybe too well. Over-population is a key contributor to poverty and global warming, so by flipping your argument Johnny (somewhat facetiously I admit) maybe we should be thanking homosexuals for unwittingly acting as a birth control of sorts. Silliness aside, my main point is that your argument basically proposes a blackmailing of a minority to bend to the majority’s will on the assumption that that minority is reliant on the majority for it’s survival.
62 On Jan 12th, 2008, at 12:50am, Mia Holton wrote:
And theres that key word ‘Context’.While no theologian I’m not completely ignorant of Scripture and the awareness of how important context is. Im frustrated when people quote the Bible to support their self-righteous judgement on others (Im not pointing fingers here just speaking in general) but fail to study the text or read on to get the full picture. The problem is that people interpret the context differently, so your suggestion to read Scripture in context is not as simple as it seems. I dont agree with St Jerome; his words remind me of why before the printing press the Bible was restricted to scholars & holy men because instilling that sort of belief gave them power over the masses.Of course reading the Bible can bring you closer to God but Christ is about your heart & the intentions behind your actions & an illiterate person on an island who’s never heard of the Bible is quite capable of having Christ in his heart without ‘knowing’ him like St Jerome did.
63 On Jan 13th, 2008, at 11:00pm, Greg wrote:
Johnny,
we live in a nation that prides itself on equality and freedom for all of its citizens. homosexuals aren’t less human. they live, breath, love, learn, believe, and pray just as you do.
and i pray for you and the hate you seem to have built inside of you. someday your day of judgement will come and you will realize how many people you have hurt and their lives destroyed.
I live in Missouri a state that extends hate crime legislation for homosexuals. I have a friend that was beat up by three men he didn’t know but they knew that he was gay. He suffered a broken clavicle among other injuries. The police didn’t press charges.
You can quote whatever passages from scripture you want, but at the end of the day the God I pray to is capable of such profound love, that words couldn’t even describe it, and that homosexuals are loved every bit as much as heterosexuals and deserve the same happiness, rights, and freedoms.
Hate is not a sound religious policy.
64 On Jan 16th, 2008, at 6:38am, Johnny wrote:
I have said I’m for homosexuals, murders, rapist, etc… I love the sinner but hate the sin. We live in an ignorant society that is out of touch with reality. People are out of touch with God and God is very real. We then wander why there are so many insane things going on. You must understand homosexual acts are a sin according to Christ not the people of any congregation. I hope you do believe there is a God and a devil. Just a quick note: if your looking for a pitch fork and horns in order to see evil, you will miss(satan0 him.
65 On Jan 19th, 2008, at 12:42pm, Greg wrote:
Actually I would like to correct you. Christ never said homosexual acts are a sin.
And unlike murders and rapists, being homosexual does nothing to hurt anyone else. A rapist takes advantage of another person sexual, a murder takes another’s life. A homosexual merely seeks to love someone, and is denied humanity by a culture seeking to vilify their love, because they do not understand it.